4 Things That Could Keep 3-D TV Out of Your Living Room

Big screen LCDs and plasma TVs are so 2009. If TV manufacturers are to be believed, the hottest consumer electronics product of the next few years is likely to be a 3-D TV.

Almost every major TV maker including Sony, LG, Panasonic and Mitsubishi showed big screen 3-D TVs at the Consumer Electronics Show this year. Even content providers such as ESPN, DirecTV and Discovery have promised 3-D channels that will begin broadcasting in 2011.

But before you start saving to buy a 3-D TV, consider the downsides. It’s not for everyone and it may not be as much fun as you think. Here are four reasons that could keep 3-D TVs out of your living room.

Watching 3-D content can be exhausting

Remember when you mother told you that watching too much TV is bad for your eyes? In case of 3-D TVs, she’s probably right.

3-D TVs are likely to aggravate eyestrain in many people who have minor eye problems, say optical experts. And because they are such a new sensory experience, many viewers could end up with a headache, Dr Michael Rosenberg, an ophthalmology professor at Northwestern University told Reuters.

About 20 percent of people who saw a 3-D movie did not like it because of the eyestrain, according to a survey by Pricewaterhouse Coopers. About 5 percent of people are also “stereoblind,” which means they cannot see depth by combining and comparing images from both eyes, says the firm.

And unlike regular TVs, 3-D TVs are best experienced with dim lights at all times. So the classic Superbowl scenario — a group of friends eating chips and dips and getting up a few times to get some beer — won’t work, says James McQuivey, an analyst with Forrester Research.

“It’s not going to work for any social viewing,” he says. “It’s going to be like, ‘let’s sit down and watch this movie,’ with the eyes focused on the screen all the time.”

That also means no flipping through magazines during commercials or watching 3-D TV while making dinner. 3-D TV demands utter and complete concentration. So sit down and focus.

And with all that sensory overload, you are more likely to feel fatigued after a few hours of 3-D immersion.

3-D Glasses are a drag

Watching a clip of Monsters vs. Aliens or Avatar on a 3-D TV can be fun. But first you have to need to put on a pair of compatible glasses — either specially polarized ones, or active shutter glasses that contain electronics synchronized with the images on the screen to deliver a 3-D effect to your eyes.

Wearing glasses for a three-hour movie like Avatar is one thing. But doing it every day, day after day, can quickly become annoying.

Though active shutter or polarized 3-D glasses are getting more lightweight and sleeker, there’s no escaping that they are still a pair of glasses you’ll have to wear every time you want to watch 3-D video on your TV.

What’s also not clear is how 3-D glasses will work for those who already wear prescription eyeglasses. For now, you just have to put them on over your regular glasses — hardly an elegant solution.

The glasses will also cost extra. Consumers who spend $3,000 for a 3-D TV will have to shell out more to get a pair of glasses. Active shutter glasses can cost $50 a pop or more and for a big family, the cost can add up. Also, buyers need to factor in losses, because glasses can be misplaced easily.

TV makers will likely offer bundled deals where a pair or two of glasses are included with purchase of a TV set, but so far there have been no clear announcements.

And if you’re having friends over to watch a movie or a game, you’ll have to remind them to bring their own glasses. If they forget, they are out of luck.

Some companies, such as LG, Samsung and Mitsubishi, are showing prototypes of 3-D TVs that require no glasses. But in that case, the TV can be a very limiting experience. 3-D TVs without glasses have a very specific viewing range — four feet in some cases — and have very specific viewing angles, so they’re not well-suited to screenings with more than a small number of viewers.

Expensive for consumers and producers

For consumers, 3-D is likely to work best for gaming and sports. Forrester’s McQuivey estimates the total hours a week a viewer might want to watch 3-D content could be two to five hours. That’s just 10 percent to 20 percent of the average person’s total viewing time.

And for that bit of viewing pleasure, be prepared to shell out a few thousand bucks. Currently, 3-D is only an option on relatively high end TVs costing $2,000 to $3,000 or more, and it adds about $300 to the sticker price of a 2-D TV. You’ll also need to buy new peripherals, such as Blu-ray players, that conform to the 3-D spec.

Creating 3-D content will be an expensive process, as well. The production costs of a 3-D movie are between 5 to 10 percent higher for computer-generated animation movies and 10 to 15 percent higher for live-action movies, estimates Pricewaterhouse Coopers in a research report. “Only a minority of films will be able to justify those costs, even in 10 years,” says David Wertheimer, CEO of USC Entertainment Center in the report.

Different formats cause confusion

LCD or Plasma? How big — 30 or 50 inches? Consumer decision-making around HDTVs has been simplified enough for anyone to walk into a Costco store and pick out a TV.

Buying a 3-D TV will be more challenging. Glasses or no glasses? Active shutter glasses or polarized filter glasses?

Then there are differences in how the 3-D effect is produced. Companies like Sony use alternate frame sequencing along with active shutter glasses for the 3-D effect.

Meanwhile, LG and others are using different technologies to create the autosterescopy effect to create 3-D TVs that require no glasses. (Read Wired.com’s explainer on how different 3-D TV technologies work.)

The average consumer may find it all extremely confusing and will have to learn new terms and technologies to cope with it.

For the coming year at least, most people will choose to stay with their regular, two-dimensional HDTVs.

Here’s The Thing With Ad Blockers

We get it: Ads aren’t what you’re here for. But ads help us keep the lights on. So, add us to your ad blocker’s whitelist or pay $1 per week for an ad-free version of WIRED. Either way, you are supporting our journalism. We’d really appreciate it.